(09-18-2019 04:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 03:27 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  again one has to understand the history at the time

Louisville was not available to the Big 12 when the Big 12 NEEDED them to keep their new Fox Tier 2 TV contract that REQUIRED 10 teams to remain in place

Louisville was going to wait out the mandated contract with the BE before they left

in addition the Big 12 had a Tier 1 TV contract with ESPN that had 4 years remaining on it and that paid $60 million per year vs the $90 the new Fox contract paid

so the Big 12 was not in a position to just add more and more teams they were not going to get paid to add

yes the ESPN contract WAS for 12 teams, but the Fox contract was not and it was new, longer, and paying significantly more

but eventually after TCU and WVU were added ESPN came to the Big 12 and offered to toss the old contract and negotiate a new one that matched the length of the Fox contract

by then Louisville was already ion talks with the ACC because it was less than a month later that Louisville joined the BE

so the Big 12 was not in the position to make a 99 year decision on membership (the length of the Big 12 contract for conference membership) by just adding more and more teams when the finances associated with that were much less clear

Hold on here - that's definitely NOT how it went down. Mitch McConnell directly inserted himself into the process to lobby university presidents and politicians associated with the Big 12 to add Louisville. The main proposal at the time was for the Big 12 to add West Virginia, BYU and Louisville. If the Big 12 had invited Louisville, then they were gone. Period. It just happened that West Virginia alone got the nod. Louisville certainly didn't give two craps about the Big East exit fee or what that conference contract stated. They weren't waiting for the Big East contract to end or for ACC discussions. At the time, it truly appeared that the Big 12 was the *only* lifeline that Louisville (or West Virginia or anyone else) had and they were going to grab it.

The Big Ten poaching Maryland later on is the only reason why the ACC came into play.

Louisville only acted that way when it became clear there was an chance that they were about to be left behind

they were watching FSU and possibly Clemson flirt with the Big 12 (and lets be clear here with FSU specifically when a member of the BOR comes out and says that discussions need to happen that is more than just internet chatter) and Louisville was clearly taking their time and in no rush to act at all

they felt as though the Big 12 would NEED to get to 12 or HAVE TO get to 12 and with others being talked about (FSU and Clemson) Louisville felt they had a home somewhere and they would sit back and see what happened

they felt that even if the Big 12 needed to get to 10 for the 2012 season that they would look to add two more members they could wait on and the Big 12 simply decided to not do that

also no one really expected TCU to be a serious contender and when that got out well Louisville saw a window shutting and they tried to pull out all the stops

people want view realignment back then from the lens of today where teams that have been telling themselves "they belong" while sitting on their ass waiting way too long to do anything to make that happen are now panicking and running around constantly making noise and begging and blowing people to try and get in a conference

all of this caught a lot of people by surprise and we know this from the perlman Nebraska article where Nebraska was caught flat footed (again NEBRASKA) and had to panic and pull out all the stops to get in the conversation because they were caught so flat footed that the person that gave them the heads up said he had heard NOTHING of Nebraska being mentioned by anyone and there was a real chance they would be left behind

so if NEBRASKA was caught totally and completely off guard and was having to pull out all the stops then you KNOW many other programs were caught even more off guard

then when change did start to happen people thought there would be some volcanic eruption with the Big 12 folding OR the Big 12 taking some ACC teams and the Big 10 taking some ACC teams, the SEC SEC SEC maybe taking an ACC team, or who knows what, but it would be BIG

and then all that happened was what people probably expected the least (outside of CU to the PAC 10)....the PAC 10 took Utah, the Big 10 took ONE team (NU) and said they were done (and people believed them) and then the SEC SEC SEC took aggy and MU of all things

then all the sudden the ACC started taking teams and the BE was falling apart and the basketball schools wanted out and then suddenly the Big 10 is back looking at Rutgers and Maryland of all things

none of that outside of CU to the PAC 10 was what anyone really expected and again we know that Nebraska was caught totally off guard (from the mouth of their chancellor) so then you know a hell of a lot of other programs were as well and you know a hell of a lot of them were sitting around taking their time pretending that people would call them and give them a chance instead of having to fight for that chance (as we see those left behind let their program rot for decades programs doing now)

people were caught WAY off guard, people did not expect the unexpected, people thought they would get a courtesy call asking them if they would like to come maybe talk about membership here or there and they expected they would get wind of others around them making moves so they could make plans

but again we know that NU was clueless, we know that a ton of unexpected things happened and we know that no one was acting like they are today (because they weren't)

add that into the context of the Big 12 having a fresh 13 year contract that only paid for 10 teams (we do not know if there was an expansion clause on that contract at the time only a requirement for 10 teams) and the Big 12 having a contract that was very low with 4 years left on it and other conferences starting to get more money and again there were additional factors in play

people most likely expected that the Big 12 would look to get to 12 teams "because", or because of the CCG requirements at the time, or because adding two teams and the reduced payments to do so would not make much of a difference in keeping up with other conferences.....then it came out how much other conferences were going to be making and the Big 12 was going to just be even with the SEC SEC SEC for a few years and slightly behind the Big 10 with only having 10 teams and including some exit fees and reduced payments to new teams.....and suddenly the cost to the Big 12 for two more teams was a lot more significant especially if they did not get a new contract 3 years early from ESPN

you cannot view what happened in the past from the lens of today while ignoring the money factors, the lack of immediate decisive action (by anyone besides NU and CU), how caught off guard people were by the moves that were made, and the money factors at the time

the fact that Louisville waited to get Mitch involved until it was all but a done deal with WVU to the Big 12 just confirms how reactive they were instead of proactive

(09-18-2019 05:09 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Todd, we are not talking about Temple’s football record. Whether they won by field goal or lost by 70 points is irrelevant. They played other Eastern independents then some of those schools in the Big East. Call it rivalry, history, tradition, whatever. The fact is Temple used to play those schools on a regular basis. Not anymore. Of all the football schools that were in the Big East from 1991-2005, Temple is the only one that’s not in a P5 league. Did they do it to themselves? They did but let’s not pretend like Rutgers was any better or even Virginia Tech before Frank Beamer.

but that does not change the fact that you do not lose something that you never cared about and put no effort into or that you can sit back and ignore your own total and complete abdication of responsibility for your own plight and well being and then blame the actions of other events for you losing something....that you clearly gave not a damn about

the question was who was the biggest loser in realignment IN THIS DECADE no less and there is not a chance in hell it was Temple because at least a few other programs tried and gave a damn even if they were not that successful

Louisville was the last one to take active steps to ensure a top football program, while maintaining a basketball program. Louisville took these steps starting in the 80's. ECU started a decade before them, but had no basketball program. Cincy did not begin to address it's football program until the late 80's, early 90's. If football were all that mattered, Cincy and ECU are ahead of UConn. UConn was sold a pipe dream by a former AD. It's that simple.

(09-18-2019 10:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Carolina's cheating applies to athletes, not normal students. That might sound like a difference without a distinction, but it's not. Admissions are a big issue for UVa, Duke, GT, and WF, and was an issue for MD.

you actually have this backwards

the "official findings" were that the cheating at UNC involved more than just athletes and was open to all of the student body

that is why the NCAA stated they would take no actions and why the accreditation board took the weak action of giving them double secret probation

of course most involved were athletes, but UNC conveniently let some regular students in on the cheating as well most likely because they knew that would stop down the NCAA and because they know that accreditation boards never do anything of consequence

which really makes their cheating that much worse in reality because it was clearly planned out to get away with even if caught 100% red handed (as they did get away with it)

(09-18-2019 07:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Ranking the losers one, two and thrice
Realignment — a roll of the dice
UConn comes in at three
Number 2 is UC
And the biggest blow — suffered by Rice

(That's a successful A,A,B,B,A rhyme scheme yet an awkwardly metered limerick — for those who care.)

I don't know what Rice's situation was before and after realignment, but it couldn't be too much different. They were G5 before, G5 after.

Also, a school like Rice can never be called a true "loser" in athletics, because athletics just doesn't mean nearly as much to them as it does to your typical striver directional. Rice is a near-Ivy league level school with a $6 Billion endowment. It doesn't need athletics for "school spirit", boost enrollment, attract media attention, attract donors, fire up alumni, or any of the other fake reasons lesser schools give to soak their students for money losing athletics.

(09-18-2019 10:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Ranking the losers one, two and thrice
Realignment — a roll of the dice
UConn comes in at three
Number 2 is UC
And the biggest blow — suffered by Rice

(That's a successful A,A,B,B,A rhyme scheme yet an awkwardly metered limerick — for those who care.)

I don't know what Rice's situation was before and after realignment, but it couldn't be too much different. They were G5 before, G5 after.

Also, a school like Rice can never be called a true "loser" in athletics, because athletics just doesn't mean nearly as much to them as it does to your typical striver directional. Rice is a near-Ivy league level school with a $6 Billion endowment. It doesn't need athletics for "school spirit", boost enrollment, attract media attention, attract donors, fire up alumni, or any of the other fake reasons lesser schools give to soak their students for money losing athletics.

Rice's status as a loser really was in the 90's when the SWC dissolved. Less so this last decade, although, like Southern Miss and UAB, they're facing a terribly weakened C-USA compared to the one at the start of the 2010's.

BTW, this is part of why I make the argument for Rice as an independent. I think they'd like the freedom to schedule more Texas schools (especially former SWC rivals),more academically elite schools like Wake Forest this past weekend, and less non Texas schools from C-USA which mean nothing to Rice.

(09-18-2019 10:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Carolina's cheating applies to athletes, not normal students. That might sound like a difference without a distinction, but it's not. Admissions are a big issue for UVa, Duke, GT, and WF, and was an issue for MD.

you actually have this backwards

the "official findings" were that the cheating at UNC involved more than just athletes and was open to all of the student body

that is why the NCAA stated they would take no actions and why the accreditation board took the weak action of giving them double secret probation

of course most involved were athletes, but UNC conveniently let some regular students in on the cheating as well most likely because they knew that would stop down the NCAA and because they know that accreditation boards never do anything of consequence

which really makes their cheating that much worse in reality because it was clearly planned out to get away with even if caught 100% red handed (as they did get away with it)

No, I have nothing backwards. I don't need offiical findings since I and my family were there. Organized cheating is for athletes, the rest have to go to class.

(09-18-2019 10:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Ranking the losers one, two and thrice
Realignment — a roll of the dice
UConn comes in at three
Number 2 is UC
And the biggest blow — suffered by Rice

(That's a successful A,A,B,B,A rhyme scheme yet an awkwardly metered limerick — for those who care.)

I don't know what Rice's situation was before and after realignment, but it couldn't be too much different. They were G5 before, G5 after.

Also, a school like Rice can never be called a true "loser" in athletics, because athletics just doesn't mean nearly as much to them as it does to your typical striver directional. Rice is a near-Ivy league level school with a $6 Billion endowment. It doesn't need athletics for "school spirit", boost enrollment, attract media attention, attract donors, fire up alumni, or any of the other fake reasons lesser schools give to soak their students for money losing athletics.

The following is a timeline of committment to major college football by a school, not a small school playing one or two games a year against what is now a P-5.

Early 2000's - USF, UCF, UConn
Late 90's - Cincy
Late 80's - Louisville
Late 70's - ECU
Early 70's -Houston
[b][b]1964 - FSU and Utah
1962 - Arizona and ASU
1957 - Oklahoma State
1956 - Texas Tech[/b][/b]

SMU 1918, Rice 1915, and TCU 1923 were all members of the SWC until 1996.

Since 1960 only TT, Oklahoma State, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Florida State, Louisville, and Houston graduated to the top echelon. That's just 8 schools over the last 60 years. Houston, Rice, TCU, and SMU were tossed out in 1996. Only TCU has managed to come back.

Cincy is the bridesmaid here and USF and UCF are only old enough to get married in South Carolina.

(09-18-2019 09:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  For anyone saying Rice is a victim -- no. They have more than enough money to become a college sports power, but they (wisely, I'd say) opt to invest in academics instead.

Umm, if they invested at all, they'd be another Stanford, Northwestern or Vandy.

Plenty of people remember them in a major conference, miraculously their name still has some sports cachet and Houston (the city/region) is faintly behind them and could get behind them more.

Even as a yearly Big 12, B1G or SEC bottom feeder, they'd get lots of press, publicity and enhance their name.

(09-18-2019 04:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It's hard to call anyone other than UConn as the biggest loser because they legitimately went from "next in line" for an ACC invite (being THISCLOSE to getting the spot instead of Louisville) to the point today where they realize that they will probably *never* receive a P5 invite for at least this generation (if not ever). It was essentially a coin flip for them being an ACC member versus where they are today... and the coin landed on the wrong side.

UConn would be in the ACC today if the Louisville basketball stripper story had become public before the ACC invited Louisville.

No they wouldn't. Cincy would be.

There's no conceivable way that UConn was replacing Maryland outside of media and message board talk.

(09-18-2019 05:09 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Todd, we are not talking about Temple’s football record. Whether they won by field goal or lost by 70 points is irrelevant. They played other Eastern independents then some of those schools in the Big East. Call it rivalry, history, tradition, whatever. The fact is Temple used to play those schools on a regular basis. Not anymore. Of all the football schools that were in the Big East from 1991-2005, Temple is the only one that’s not in a P5 league. Did they do it to themselves? They did but let’s not pretend like Rutgers was any better or even Virginia Tech before Frank Beamer.

but that does not change the fact that you do not lose something that you never cared about and put no effort into or that you can sit back and ignore your own total and complete abdication of responsibility for your own plight and well being and then blame the actions of other events for you losing something....that you clearly gave not a damn about

the question was who was the biggest loser in realignment IN THIS DECADE no less and there is not a chance in hell it was Temple because at least a few other programs tried and gave a damn even if they were not that successful
[/quote]

And where did I mentioned Temple was the biggest loser in realignment this decade? I stated it was UConn and BYU. The only reason why Temple was mentioned is because another poster quoted me about Temple on another thread (Rutgers). On said thread, I mentioned of all the football schools that played in the Big East from 1991 to 2005, Temple is the only school that’s not in a P5 league. That’s it. If you want to argue about W/L records or if the other schools cared about them or not that’s your prerogative.

(09-18-2019 10:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Louisville was the last one to take active steps to ensure a top football program, while maintaining a basketball program. Louisville took these steps starting in the 80's. ECU started a decade before them, but had no basketball program. Cincy did not begin to address it's football program until the late 80's, early 90's. If football were all that mattered, Cincy and ECU are ahead of UConn. UConn was sold a pipe dream by a former AD. It's that simple.

UConn’s sin is that they made their transition to FBS in 2002 and started playing a full Big East season in 2004. They lacked any history whether it was good or bad at the highest level and that counted against them when it came to the last realignment.

Idaho and New Mexico State. No one else has programs affected like them. While others may have shifted conferences that may or not be better, may have lost rivalries etc, no one else has their conference pulled out from under them with no other options in the table. No one but Idaho was forced to drop to FCS to find a conference, and no one but New Mexico State lost a football conference and had to become and Indy involuntarily.

(09-18-2019 11:21 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Ranking the losers one, two and thrice
Realignment — a roll of the dice
UConn comes in at three
Number 2 is UC
And the biggest blow — suffered by Rice

(That's a successful A,A,B,B,A rhyme scheme yet an awkwardly metered limerick — for those who care.)

I don't know what Rice's situation was before and after realignment, but it couldn't be too much different. They were G5 before, G5 after.

Also, a school like Rice can never be called a true "loser" in athletics, because athletics just doesn't mean nearly as much to them as it does to your typical striver directional. Rice is a near-Ivy league level school with a $6 Billion endowment. It doesn't need athletics for "school spirit", boost enrollment, attract media attention, attract donors, fire up alumni, or any of the other fake reasons lesser schools give to soak their students for money losing athletics.

The following is a timeline of committment to major college football by a school, not a small school playing one or two games a year against what is now a P-5.

Early 2000's - USF, UCF, UConn
Late 90's - Cincy
Late 80's - Louisville
Late 70's - ECU
Early 70's -Houston
[b][b]1964 - FSU and Utah
1962 - Arizona and ASU
1957 - Oklahoma State
1956 - Texas Tech[/b][/b]

SMU 1918, Rice 1915, and TCU 1923 were all members of the SWC until 1996.

Since 1960 only TT, Oklahoma State, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Florida State, Louisville, and Houston graduated to the top echelon. That's just 8 schools over the last 60 years. Houston, Rice, TCU, and SMU were tossed out in 1996. Only TCU has managed to come back.

Cincy is the bridesmaid here and USF and UCF are only old enough to get married in South Carolina.

Your timeline for Louisville football is a little off.

In 1982/83 discussions were held to consider dropping football or at least moving it down to Division II.

Our AD at the time Bill Olsen was against eliminating football or dropping in competition. When Louisville needed a coach in the fall of 1984, UofL targeted the unemployed Howard Schnellenberger. Coach Schnellenberger had resigned from Miami, after winning the National Championship in 1983, to coach a USFL that never materialized.

With the help of Governor John Y Brown, Louisville was able to get Howard to come home to Louisville. Howard accepted the Louisville job in December 1984.

The Big 12 contacted Louisville about joining in late July / early August 2011. Louisville basically told The Big 12 “Thanks but No Thanks”. A Courier Journal story here in Louisville actually used that title.

UofL and Big 12

Louisville was content to stay in The Big East until Pitt and Syracuse jumped to The ACC. ESPN broke the news late on Friday September 16, 2011 and Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg held a press conference announcing the move the following Sunday.

The news caught Jurich off guard. When they asked him about it on the sideline of the UofL/UK football game that Saturday he was pissed. In May of that year The Big East had turned down an 11 million per team offer from ESPN. That committee was chaired by Nordenberg who gave a passionate speech about keeping Big East football together before the vote to turn the ESPN offer down.

After being slow played by Louisville, The Big 12 moved on to WVU. By the time Jurich and Louisville realized Pitt and Syracuse were leaving, WVU was well on its way to The Big 12.

Louisville tried to jump back in by asking UofL grad Mitch McConnell to speak with his former colleague at Oklahoma, David Borden, about Louisville joining The Big 12.

West Virginia media immediately accused Louisville and McConnell about stealing its invite to The Big 12 when the reality was if UofL had been responsive to The Big 12, 2 to 3 months earlier, the invite would have been Louisville’s not West Virginia.

(09-18-2019 11:21 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Ranking the losers one, two and thrice
Realignment — a roll of the dice
UConn comes in at three
Number 2 is UC
And the biggest blow — suffered by Rice

(That's a successful A,A,B,B,A rhyme scheme yet an awkwardly metered limerick — for those who care.)

I don't know what Rice's situation was before and after realignment, but it couldn't be too much different. They were G5 before, G5 after.

Also, a school like Rice can never be called a true "loser" in athletics, because athletics just doesn't mean nearly as much to them as it does to your typical striver directional. Rice is a near-Ivy league level school with a $6 Billion endowment. It doesn't need athletics for "school spirit", boost enrollment, attract media attention, attract donors, fire up alumni, or any of the other fake reasons lesser schools give to soak their students for money losing athletics.

The following is a timeline of committment to major college football by a school, not a small school playing one or two games a year against what is now a P-5.

Early 2000's - USF, UCF, UConn
Late 90's - Cincy
Late 80's - Louisville
Late 70's - ECU
Early 70's -Houston
[b][b]1964 - FSU and Utah
1962 - Arizona and ASU
1957 - Oklahoma State
1956 - Texas Tech[/b][/b]

SMU 1918, Rice 1915, and TCU 1923 were all members of the SWC until 1996.

Since 1960 only TT, Oklahoma State, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Florida State, Louisville, and Houston graduated to the top echelon. That's just 8 schools over the last 60 years. Houston, Rice, TCU, and SMU were tossed out in 1996. Only TCU has managed to come back.

Cincy is the bridesmaid here and USF and UCF are only old enough to get married in South Carolina.

UCF committed in the mid 90's when they moved up with Daunte Culpepper as their QB.

(09-19-2019 12:56 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 09:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  For anyone saying Rice is a victim -- no. They have more than enough money to become a college sports power, but they (wisely, I'd say) opt to invest in academics instead.

Umm, if they invested at all, they'd be another Stanford, Northwestern or Vandy.

Plenty of people remember them in a major conference, miraculously their name still has some sports cachet and Houston (the city/region) is faintly behind them and could get behind them more.

Even as a yearly Big 12, B1G or SEC bottom feeder, they'd get lots of press, publicity and enhance their name.

Even a P5 school like Stanford still has a lot more money that it could theoretically invest in athletics. I think it makes more sense to put that money into research, but like Rice, they aren't fulfilling their potential for athletic success.

Is this a joke? Are we really criticizing Stanford for putting money into say, medical research whenever they could be winning more football games?

A number of schools are "guilty" of this. ND athletics sends over $20 million a year to the academic side, money that I suppose could be used to hire more football consultants or build a snazzier locker room.

LSU used to send money to the academic side of the school as well, although it may have recently changed that.

(09-19-2019 07:04 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Is this a joke? Are we really criticizing Stanford for putting money into say, medical research whenever they could be winning more football games?

You'll note that I specifically stated that it's better that they invest in research over athletics. I was just pointing out that a school like Rice is not a victim when it does in fact have the ability to spend big on athletics.

(09-19-2019 02:02 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 04:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It's hard to call anyone other than UConn as the biggest loser because they legitimately went from "next in line" for an ACC invite (being THISCLOSE to getting the spot instead of Louisville) to the point today where they realize that they will probably *never* receive a P5 invite for at least this generation (if not ever). It was essentially a coin flip for them being an ACC member versus where they are today... and the coin landed on the wrong side.

UConn would be in the ACC today if the Louisville basketball stripper story had become public before the ACC invited Louisville.

No they wouldn't. Cincy would be.

There's no conceivable way that UConn was replacing Maryland outside of media and message board talk.

+1. The ACC was (still is) desperate to improve its image in football. At the time Louisville was about to play in the Sugar Bowl (where they whipped Florida). No brainer vs UConn. Cincinnati was/is the next G5 team in line for call-up if/when that ever happens again (may be nothing but P5-to-P5 realignment from here on, though).